Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - RODANTE DE LEON y DELA Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186471 Present: VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, PERALTA,
and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: January
25, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the April 4, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01811 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rodante De Leon
y Dela Rosa which affirmed the December 20, 2005 Decision[2] in
Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-122555-56 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 in
The charges against appellant stemmed from the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. Q-03-122555
(Violation of Section 5 [
That on or about the 9th day of November, 2003, in the Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law, to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute of any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wilfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction zero point sixteen (0.16) gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.[3]
Criminal Case No. Q-03-122556
(Violation of Section 11 [Possession],
Article II of RA 9165)
That on or about the 9th day of November, 2003, in the Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law, to possess or use any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and control zero point eighteen (0.18) gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.[4]
On February 16, 2004, appellant was arraigned and
pleaded “not guilty” to the charge against him. After the pre-trial conference,
trial on the merits ensued.
During the trial, the parties agreed to stipulate on
the testimonies of Engr. Leonard Jabonillo, the Forensic Chemist, and Police
Officer 1 (PO1) Oliver Estrelles, the police investigator of these cases. The
prosecution thereafter presented PO2 Noel Magcalayo as its witness. The
defense, on the other hand, presented Rodante De Leon, the accused himself.
The trial court summarized the stipulation of Engr. Jabonillo,
as follows:
x x x that he is a Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police, that his Office received the request for laboratory examination marked as Annex “A”; that together with the said request was a plastic sachet marked as Exh. “B” which contained two (2) plastic sachets marked as Exhibits “B-1” and “B-2”; that he conducted the requested laboratory examination and, in connection therewith he submitted a Chemistry Report marked as Exhibit “C”, the finding thereon showing the specimen positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride was marked as Exhibit “C-1” and the signature of said police officer was marked as Exhibit “C-2”; that he then issued a Certification marked as Exhibits “D” and “D-1” and thereafter turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian x x x. (Order dated September 14, 2004).[5]
Also, as
regards PO1 Estrelles, the following was agreed upon:
x x x that he was the investigator of these cases and in connection with the investigation conducted by him, he received the evidence, namely: the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension executed by PO2 Noel Magcalayo and PO2 Cesar Collado marked as Exhibit “E” and “E-1”; that likewise prepared the request for examination marked as Exhibit “A” and submitted the specimen to the Crime Laboratory and receive the Chemistry Report marked as Exhibit “C”; that he received the Pre-Operation Report marked as Exhibit “E” as well as the buy bust money marked as Exhibits “F” and “F-1”, that he prepared the letter request to the City Prosecutor Office marked as Exhibit “G”; and that Exhibit “A” contains superimposition of the date thereof.” (Order dated September 14, 2004).[6]
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
On November 9, 2003, at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, a confidential
informant arrived at the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special
Operation Task Force at the Novaliches Police Station in
Thereafter, Police Senior Inspector (P/SInsp.) Nilo Wong formed a team
for a buy-bust operation with PO2 Magcalayo as poseur-buyer and Senior Police
Officer 3 (SPO3) Mario Concepcion, PO2 Fernando Salonga, PO2 Cesar Collado, PO2
Edmund Paculdar, and PO1 Emeterio Mendoza as team members. A pre-operation
report was prepared. P/SInsp. Wong then handed to PO2 Magcalayo two (2) pieces
of PhP 100 bills as buy-bust money and on which PO2 Magcalayo wrote his initials
“NM.”
At around 6:30 p.m. in the evening, the team proceeded to
Afterwards, appellant was brought to the police station for
investigation. PO2 Collado then placed his initials on the sachet he found on appellant.
The evidence was subsequently turned over to the police investigator, PO1 Estrelles,
who prepared a request for its laboratory examination.
PO2 Collado, PO1 Mendoza, PO2 Paculdar, and PO2 Magcalayo then brought
the transparent plastic sachets containing the white crystalline substance
subject of the buy-bust operation to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory, Eastern Police District on St. Francis Street,
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having the following markings and recorded net weights:
A (NM) = 0.16 gm
B (CC) = 0.18 gm
x x x x
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of dangerous drugs.
x x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A and B contain Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, appellant testified that, prior to his arrest, he was
a police officer of Station 7, Araneta, Cubao,
Upon arrival at the police station in Novaliches,
The following night, he was presented on inquest during which he was
charged with violation of Secs. 5 and 11 of RA 9165. He denied all the charges
against him claiming that the alleged shabu
marked as Exhibits “B-1” and “B-2” came from the arresting police officers. He
did not file a case against them, because he had no money and because he knew
that he was not guilty.
On cross-examination, appellant further testified that he was a follow-up
operative at the Station Investigation Division of Police Station 7. He admitted that he was separated from the
service because he was absent without official leave due to a business problem
he had to attend to. He likewise said that he did not know his arresting
officers, whom he saw then for the first time, and that he was not familiar
with RA 9165.
Ruling of the Trial Court
After trial, the RTC convicted appellant. The
dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
Re: Criminal Case NO. Q-03-122555, the Court finds accused RODANTE DE LEON y DELA ROSA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00;
Re: Criminal Case NO. Q-03-122556, the Court finds accused RODANTE DE LEON y DELA ROSA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00;
SO ORDERED.[7]
On appeal to the CA, appellant disputed the trial
court’s decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged. He argued that the alleged buy-bust operation conducted by the police
officers was tainted with irregularities and that the prosecution failed to
prove the chain of custody of the evidence.
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On April 4, 2008, the CA affirmed the judgment of the trial
court. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 20 December 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82 finding accused-appellant Rodante De Leon y Dela Rosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. Q-03-122555 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00, and in Criminal Case No. Q-03-122556 for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal of the
decision of the CA.
Appellant
assigns the following errors:
I.
The trial court gravely erred in ignoring the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the alleged confiscated items from the accused-appellant.
II.
The trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
We sustain appellant’s conviction.
Guilt of Appellant Was Proved Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
Appellant assails his conviction by contending that the trial court
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, the trial
court erroneously convicted him on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution
despite a question of the legality of the buy-bust operation. Further, he
asserts that the trial court relied on the disputable presumption of regularity
in the performance of the police function, despite the police officers violated
the rule on chain of custody of the alleged confiscated items.
The contentions are unmeritorious.
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual
in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with
respect, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and
speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such
findings.[9]
The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide
the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[10]
After a thorough examination of the entire records of this case, this
Court has failed to identify any error committed by the trial court in its
appreciation of the evidence presented before it and in the conclusion it
reached.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal
sale of prohibited drugs, the Court has reiterated the essential elements in People v. Pendatun, to wit: (1) the
accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that
what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.[11]
Therefore, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.[12]
Corpus delicti is the body or
substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has actually been
committed. It has two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a
certain event; and (2) some person’s criminal responsibility for the act.[13]
In the instant case, the prosecution
sufficiently established the elements of the crime. Appellant sold and
delivered the shabu for PhP 200 to
PO2 Magcalayo posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified as a
prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; there was actual
exchange of the marked money and contraband; and finally, appellant was fully
aware that he was selling and delivering a prohibited drug. In fact, PO2
Magcalayo testified, thus:
Q: Mr.
Witness, on November 9, 2003, did you report for duty?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What
happened when you reported for duty?
A: Our
confidential informant personally appeared in our station and reporting to us
the alleged drug pushing activity of Rodante De Leon.
Q: What time
was that when this confidential informant arrived at your office?
A: Around 5:00
p.m., sir.
Q: What
happened when this confidential informant relayed to you the information about
this Rodante De Leon?
A: Our Chief
sir, formed a team for possible buy bust operation.
COURT:
Who
formed?
A: P/Sr.
Inspector Nilo Wong, your honor.
PROS. ANTERO:
Who
composed this team?
A: Us, sir.
SPO3 Mario Concepcion, PO2 Fernando Salonga, PO2 Cesar Collado, PO2 Edmund
Paculdar and PO1 Emeterio Mendoza, your Honor.
Q: What
happened when this team was formed, Mr. Witness?
A: We
proceeded to
COURT:
Were you
among the team?
A: Yes, your
Honor.
PROS. ANTERO:
Prior to
the dispatch to conduct that buy-bust operation, what happened, if any?
A: We prepared
the pre-operation report and our Chief handed to me the two (2) pieces of
P100.00 bills as buy bust money.
Q: What did you do with that two (2) P100.00 bills?
A: Before we
were dispatched, I put my initial on the buy-bust money.
Q: What
initial?
A: NM, sir.
Q: What [does]
NM stand for?
A: Noel
Magcalayo, sir.
Q: I am
showing you these two (2) P100.00 bills, kindly examine the same whether you
know those P100.00 bills?
A: These are
the buy bust money that we used in the operation, sir.
x x x x
Q: What
happened after you were given these buy bust money?
A: We
proceeded to
Q: What time
was that when you proceeded there?
A: At around
6:30 in the afternoon, sir.
Q: What
happened, Mr. Witness?
A: We were
able to meet Rodante De Leon.
Q: How did you
meet this Rodante De Leon?
A: By the help
of our confidential informant, sir.
Q: Can you
tell this
A: We
approached him and then our confidential informant introduced me to him as a
buyer of shabu.
COURT:
What?
A: I was
introduced to him by the confidential informant as a buyer of shabu.
PROS. ANTERO:
What
happened thereafter?
A: He made
transaction with us, sir.
Q: What
happened during the transaction?
A: I asked him
sir if he has shabu and then he answered yes and magkano.
Q: What did he
tell you, if any?
A: He asked me
how much I would buy shabu.
Q: What did
you tell, if any?
A: That was
the time when I handed to him the money, sir.
Q: What
happened when you handed the money to him?
A: In return,
sir, he handed to me one (1) plastic sachet containing suspected shabu.
Q: One?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What
happened after he handed to you one plastic sachet?
A: I gave
pre-arranged signal to my back-up and immediately effected the arrest, sir.
Q: What was
the pre-arranged signal?
A: By
scratching my head, sir.
Q: Scratching
your head?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What
happened when you made that pre-arranged signal?
A: I effected
the arrest, sir, and confiscated the buy bust money from Rodante De Leon.[14]
Evidently, all the elements of the crime of
illegal sale of prohibited drugs were proved in the instant case. The testimony
cited above shows clearly that a sale occurred between appellant, as the
seller, and PO2 Magcalayo, as the buyer, for PhP 200 worth of shabu. In addition, the said testimony
illustrated the seizing of the prohibited drug and the exchange of the marked
money. As a matter of fact, the trial court, in disposing of the case, said:
x x
x Set against this legal yardstick, the evidence adduced by the prosecution
have sufficiently established the elements aforesaid. The prosecution witnesses
in the person of PO2 Noel Magcalayo, the one who acted as the poseur buyer in
the buy bust operation conducted by his team, described in detail how the
operation was commenced with the help of an informant, his introduction to the
accused, the ensuing negotiation and consummation of the sale of shabu which
ended up in the exchange of the item as well as the buy bust money. Accused was
positively identified as the seller thereof and the source of the plastic
sachet which contained crystalline substance later on determined after
laboratory examination as positive for methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug.
Said evidence was presented in court and properly identified as the subject of
the buy bust and which was submitted for examination by the Forensic Chemist.
All told, all the elements aforementioned are hereby present.[15]
x x x
Further, the chain of custody was clearly
established by the prosecution. It is elementary that, in every prosecution for
the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug as evidence
in court is material.[16]
It is, therefore, essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond doubt. What is more, the fact that the substance bought
during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court should be
established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it
ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.[17]
To ensure that the chain of custody is
established, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provide:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(a)
The
apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided,
that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
A close examination of the law reveals that it
admits of certain exceptions. Thus, contrary to the assertions of appellant,
Sec. 21 of the foregoing law need not be followed as an exact science.
Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the
items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[18]
What is essential is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused.”[19]
In the instant case, there was substantial
compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant
was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was
shown not to have been broken. The factual milieu of the case reveals that
after PO2 Magcalayo seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs, as well as the
marked money, appellant was immediately arrested and brought to the police
station for investigation, where the sachet of suspected shabu was marked with “NM.”
Immediately thereafter, the confiscated substance, with a letter of
request for examination, was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug. Per Chemistry Report No. D-1240-2003
dated November 9, 2003, the specimen
submitted contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The
examination was conducted by one Engr. Jabonillo, a Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, whose stipulated testimony clearly established the chain of custody
of the specimens he received. Thus, it is without a doubt that there was an
unbroken chain of custody of the illicit drug purchased from appellant.
Likewise, the prosecution was able to prove that
appellant is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs with moral
certainty. In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following elements must be proved with moral certainty: (1) that the accused is
in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2)
that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely
and consciously possessed the said drug.[20]
Here, appellant was caught in actual possession
of the prohibited drugs without showing any proof that he was duly authorized
by law to possess them. Having been caught in
flagrante delicto, there is prima
facie evidence of animus possidendi
on appellant’s part. As held by this Court, the finding of a dangerous drug in
the house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to
convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation.[21]
In the case at bar, appellant failed to present any evidence to rebut his animus possidendi of the shabu found in his pocket during the
buy-bust operation.
Buy-Bust Operation Was Valid
Appellant further argues that the buy-bust operation was full of
irregularities, rendering it illegal. He notes that the Pre-Operation Report was
full of discrepancies and that the Joint Sworn Affidavit of Apprehension of PO2
Magcalayo and PO2 Collado failed to mention that they placed their markings on
the plastic sachets.
The arguments are specious. Such irregularities cannot overturn the
finding of the presence in this case of the elements of violations of Secs. 5
and 11, Art. II of RA 9165.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the
execution of their criminal plan.[22]
In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an
effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[23]
In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that the buy-bust
operation conducted by the police officers, who made use of entrapment to
capture appellant in the act of selling a dangerous drug, was valid and legal. Moreover, the defense has failed to show any evidence
of ill motive on the part of the police officers. Even appellant himself
declared that it was the first time he met the police officers during his
cross-examination. There was, therefore, no motive for the police officers to frame
up appellant.
Likewise, the identity of appellant as the
person who sold the dangerous drugs to PO2 Magcalayo and the one in possession
of the shabu cannot be doubted
anymore. Such positive identification prevails over appellant’s defenses of
denial and alibi. These defenses have been invariably viewed by the Court with
disfavor, for they can easily be concocted but difficult to prove, and they are
common and standard defense ploys in most prosecutions arising from violations
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.[24]
Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse appellant
of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the
credibility of witnesses shall prevail over appellant’s bare allegation.[25]
We, therefore, uphold the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties and find that the prosecution has
discharged its burden of proving the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA’s
Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01811 finding appellant Rodante De
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-27. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Agustin S. Dizon.
[9] People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009; People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741.
[11] G.R. No. 148822, July 12, 2004, 434 SCRA 148, 155-156; citing People v. Cercado, G.R. No. 144494, July 26, 2002, 385 SCRA 277; People v. Pacis, G.R. No. 146309, July 18, 2002, 384 SCRA 684.
[18] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; citing People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627.
[23] See People v. Herrera, G.R. No. 93728, August 21, 1995, 247 SCRA 433; People v. Tadepa, G.R. No. 100354, May 26, 1995, 244 SCRA 339.